Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[BCO]

No, I never said that. But you seem to be closed to the fact that serious scientists - perhaps even the majority of climate scientists - are very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Some of the best credentialled climate scientists, based on the scientific evidence, hold there's nothing to AGW and that it's a political phenomenon.

I can't possibly believe it's a centralised plot. That is absurd. But the issue is driven much more by politics than by science. I go with the science, and all the evidence shows AGW is a fiction.

To quote Prof Tim Ball, a real climate scientist, the AGW chicken-littles have been wrong on every point:

It's an outright lie that "all the evidence shows that AGW is a fiction".

Further, Tim Ball is also a proven liar. To illustrate again, let me quote:

* Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote in an April 23, 2006 letter to the editor of the The Calgary Herald in reply to an editorial by Dr. Ball: "... he does not have the academic background and qualifications to make serious comments on global warming". The newspaper had credited Ball as "the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years."[12]. His biography for the George C. Marshall Institute also cites his being "a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years".[13], and he has repeated "the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology" [14]
* Ball could not have been a professor before receiving his PhD in 1983, only 23 years before the article.
* Ball has also stated that "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg."[14]
* Ball's resume shows that at the University of Winnipeg he was Associate Professor from 1984 to 1988, then Professor from 1988 to 1996, a total of 8 years.[15]
* Ball was not "the first climatology PhD in Canada", but was in fact preceded by many well known Canadian PhD climatologists: e.g. Dr. Kenneth Hare, PhD in arctic climatology, 1950 [16], Dr. André Robert, PhD, 1965, [17], or Dr. Timothy Oke, PhD 1967 [18].
* In September, 2006, Ball filed suit against Johnson and four editors at the Calgary Herald newspaper for $325,000 for, among other things, “damages to his income earning capacity as a sought after speaker with respect to global warming”.[19]. In its response (point 50(d), p12), the Calgary Herald stated that “The Plaintiff (Dr. Ball) is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”(Original statement of claim, Defendant Johnson's answer, Defendant Calgary Herald's answer). In June 2007, Ball abandoned the suit.

Perhaps if you stuck to actual science rather than obvious lies, you might be able to make a case. As it stands now, you have no leg to stand on based on your own spurious statements, and the calibre of your champions.

Fail.

 

[Arthur]

An article in Canada Free Press does not constitute any kind of refutation of the real science of global warming.

Of course not! For you, any article published anywhere does not constitute any kind of refutation unless it supports AGW. Talk about an open mind.

BTW, CFP is not the only source of the article. It's in fact a summation for laymen. But the author, Prof Tim Ball, is an eminent climate scientist who publishes widely on real scientific journals, and that is what matters.

 

[BCO]

Of course not! For you, any article published anywhere does not constitute any kind of refutation unless it supports AGW. Talk about an open mind.

BTW, CFP is not the only source of the article. It's in fact a summation for laymen. But the author, Prof Tim Ball, is an eminent climate scientist who publishes widely on real scientific journals, and that is what matters.

Google Scholar lists seven research publications by Ball, of which the most cited has received six citations. The associated h index is four, meaning that four of his publications have been cited four times or more in peer-reviewed, academic journals.

Badass.

 

[Arthur]

It's an outright lie that "all the evidence shows that AGW is a fiction".

Further, Tim Ball is also a proven liar. To illustrate again, let me quote:

Bull****. You are providing a partisan quote from a spat. He is not a proven liar. Your source is patently motivated by politics and not science. The alleged lies are not real and arise from decontextualised constructions of Ball's otherwise legitimate statements regarding his career and credentials. Your source wants to perform a character assassination on Ball because Ball is an "AGW denier".

For example: the term 'professor' has a wide range of legitmate uses, depending on the context. When talking to laymen, it is legitimate to use it more loosely to refer to general faculty teaching positions, even of that position is not formally a professorship. To say the former use makes him a liar is disingenuous. And whether he was the first or 2nd PhD in climate science is a moot point.

The 32 year claim was not Ball's but a typo in the publication that interviewed him. It has been corrected since then.

Still, it's amazing how AGW proponents work primarly by character assassination and avoid the scientific questions raised. You do the same. This is scanadalous and shameful and reveals the real agenda. It is certainly not science, but politics.

 

[BCO]

Bull****. You are providing a partisan quote from a spat. He is not a proven liar. Your source is patently motivated by politics and not science. The alleged lies are not real and arise from decontextualised constructions of Ball's otherwise legitimate statements regarding his career and credentials. Your source wants to perform a character assassination on Ball because Ball is an "AGW denier".

For example: the term 'professor' has a wide range of legitmate uses, depending on the context. When talking to laymen, it is legitimate to use it more loosely to refer to general faculty teaching positions, even of that position is not formally a professorship. To say the former use makes him a liar is disingenuous. And whether he was the first or 2nd PhD in climate science is a moot point.

Still, it's amazing how AGW proponents work primarly by character assassination and avoid the scientific questions raised. You do the same. This is scanadalous and shameful and reveals the real agenda. It is certainly not science, but politics.

Sorry, but claiming to be the first climate scientist in Canada in an attempt to bolster one's perceived credibility is dishonest and indicates that nature of the person making the claim.

You want to talk about real science as opposed to politics? Let's look at some of the people who write for my trusty Realclimate.org.

Gavin Schmidt: over 50 peer-reviewed publications.

Michael Mann: author of more than 100 peer-reviewed and edited publications.

Caspar Amann: Over 20 peer-reviewed publications.

Raymond Bradley: over 120 peer-reviewed publications.

Yes, these guys sure sound more like politicians than scientists.

Now contrast them with Tim Ball who has a total of 7 publications and has close ties with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which are oil and gas industry funded. And you want to talk about political agendas? The irony.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Here is a nice news item:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

BTW

Both Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have been shown to be biased by Steve McIntyre. Read his accounts as he tries to get the data out of them for peer review.

Remember that science is supposed to be open source, that is the meaning of PEER review .. meaning that not just your friends and agreeists should be reviewing your work, it must be open and out there for anyone who has the capability to review it. That is REAL science not the "science" that these two use to further an agenda (that being carbon credit trading and AGW FUNDING).

Before you slam Steve as not being a climatologist, that would be stupid as anyone who takes the time to understand the science behind a discipline and school can act as a peer. That is how real science works, a piece of paper does not make you a scientist .. it is what you do with it. Many scientific advances have been made by "lay" men throughout history.

These two are *** scared of Steve to the point of obstruction. Why is that if he was not qualified to debunk their work. BTW, it was Steve that debunked Mann's hockey stick graph .. notice how it does not appear in the latest IPCC report .. wonder why?

You seem to want AGW to be real .. then again, with a nick like BlueCollar .. I can understand.

 

[BCO]

Here is a nice news item:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

BTW

Both Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann have been shown to be biased by Steve McIntyre. Read his accounts as he tries to get the data out of them for peer review.

Remember that science is supposed to be open source, that is the meaning of PEER review .. meaning that not just your friends and agreeists should be reviewing your work, it must be open and out there for anyone who has the capability to review it. That is REAL science not the "science" that these two use to further an agenda (that being carbon credit trading and AGW FUNDING).

Before you slam Steve as not being a climatologist, that would be stupid as anyone who takes the time to understand the science behind a discipline and school can act as a peer. That is how real science works, a piece of paper does not make you a scientist .. it is what you do with it. Many scientific advances have been made by "lay" men throughout history.

These two are *** scared of Steve to the point of obstruction. Why is that if he was not qualified to debunk their work. BTW, it was Steve that debunked Mann's hockey stick graph .. notice how it does not appear in the latest IPCC report .. wonder why?

You seem to want AGW to be real .. then again, with a nick like BlueCollar .. I can understand.

What does my nick have to do with anything? Why the hell would anyone want AGW to be real?

BTW, McIntyre did an excellent job campaigning for the GISS source code and methodologies to be made public (as they always should have been, I'm sure we agree). These are now available on their website AFAIK.

 

[Arthur]

Here's Tom Nelson's report from a recent congress in Norway (emphasis mine) - yet another teeny-weeny example of the gaping disparity between the mass-media peddled AGW 'consensus' nonsense and what earth-science scientists really think:

... 9) The plenaries, especially the climate session and somewhat the energy sessions, were designed for a more general scientific audience. They tended to be moderately interesting, optimistic about resources and technology and often extremely contentious. About two thirds of the presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the IPCC (International panel on climate change) and the idea that the Earth's climate was responding to human influences. This was rather shocking to me who knows of several other such scientists but had no idea there were so many. They talked about Milankovich Cycles of course, but also sunspot cycles and other possible climate forcings. These were linked to some pretty bizarre (to me) ways of influencing the climate: e.g. making cloud condensation nuclei through ionizing radiation from sun spots or slowing or speeding the Earth's rate of spin in response to cosmic rays. These were apparently very serious scientists but presented far more correlation than clear and convincing mechanism, at least I thought. An atmospheric physicist sitting next to me said that there was no correlation between cosmic rays and clouds as he had made all the measurements. The IPCC folks were adamant that there model was built on first principles, could reproduce past changes in climate and was making proper predictions. The plenary had at the end a "debate" but it was really two ships passing in the might---each side presented its arguments –usually using different types of logic, often arrogantly, and said the other side could not possible be right.

And then there's this:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

 

[BCO]

Here's Tom Nelson's report from a recent congress in Norway (emphasis mine) - yet another teeny-weeny example of the gaping disparity between the mass-media peddled AGW 'consensus' nonsense and what earth-science scientists really think:


And then there's this:

Yes yes, BWA also linked the Inhofe blog about 650 scientists. You're aware that this was at a GEOLOGY conference right? Not sure how rocks = atmosphere but hey, keep grasping at straws. The conference was actually back in August. You can check out an alternate view point (lol, like you actually care) here.

 

[BCO]

BWA and Arthur, tell you what: let's stop harping on about the scientists themselves and talk about the actual science.

I challenge you both to produce a theory that's not refuted soundly here.

Let me preempt you guys with this list of contrarian arguments:

* Chaotic systems are not predictable
* Climate models are not reliable/don't include clouds and/or other feedbacks
* CO2 isn't rising as quickly as projections
* CO2 doesn't lead, it lags
* CO2 record is not reliable
* Impacts will be beneficial
* Instrumental Record is Not Reliable
* IPCC has reduced its Sea Level Rise projections
* It's all just the sun
* Modern changes simply part of natural cycle
* Observed CO2 rise is natural
* Predictions don't match observations
* Sea Level Rise projections are exaggerated
* The hockey stick is broken
* They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
* Warming doesn't coincide with anthropogenic impacts
* Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
* Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Yes yes, BWA also linked the Inhofe blog about 650 scientists. You're aware that this was at a GEOLOGY conference right? Not sure how rocks = atmosphere but hey, keep grasping at straws. The conference was actually back in August. You can check out an alternate view point (lol, like you actually care) here.

Geology conference? I thought it was the UN conference on global warming. But hey. As for geologists, here are the quotes from the article:

-----

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

-----

As for

Not sure how rocks = atmosphere but hey

do I even have to mention ice core data anyone? (ps geology is not only rocks)

Because I know you are, um, challenged, here is da wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

Geology (from Greek: γη, gê, "earth"; and λόγος, logos, "speech" lit. to talk about the earth) is the science and study of the solid and liquid matter that constitute the Earth. The field of geology encompasses the study of the composition, structure, physical properties, dynamics, and history of Earth materials, and the processes by which they are formed, moved, and changed. The field is important in academics, industry (due to mineral and hydrocarbon extraction), and for social issues such as geotechnical engineering, the mitigation of natural hazards, and knowledge about past climate and climate change.

Oooh .. not only rocks then ")

The fact that you did not even bother to look up what geology is shows just how ignorant you are. If it does not come from realclimate.org it don't exist? Don't forget to pray 5 times a day in the direction of Poland, all your gods be there.

 

[BCO]

I stand corrected, the Inhofe blog was talking about a UN conference as well as August's geology conference.
Anyway, geology is at best a on the periphery of climate science. Now read my previous post and answer the challenge.

Also, feel free to refrain from your personal attacks on me at any time. It's not conducive to civil debate.

 

[Arthur]

As an aside, you know what secretly thrills me about the AGW movement? Future generations will ceaselessly cite them as exemplars of pseudo-scientistic obscurantism and villification that makes Galileo's case seem a model of academic and procedural decorum. On a planetary scale humans barely rank as an epiphenomenon, so there's an implicit hubris that is quite staggering. The irony is delicious.

Edit: PS. New Year's Resolution for 2009: Improve the planet by upping personal carbon footprint by 25%.

 

[BCO]

As an aside, you know what secretly thrills me about the AGW movement? Future generations will ceaselessly cite them as exemplars of pseudo-scientistic obscurantism and villification that makes Galileo's case seem a model of academic and procedural decorum. On a planetary scale humans barely rank as an epiphenomenon, so there's an implicit hubris that is quite staggering. The irony is delicious.

Are you or BWA going to present a scientific argument that is not refuted by mainstream climate science or are you just going to pontificate all day long?

 

[Arthur]

Are you or BWA going to present a scientific argument that is not refuted by mainstream climate science or are you just going to pontificate all day long?

I must confess to not being a climate scientist, and so can only quote others. It's far too tedious to retype books and journals I have, so this sort of forum debate generally relies in web-based quotes. These are as accessible to you as they are to me. If you're truly interested you'd research them yourself.

The mere fact that both sides can pick authorities to support their case shows that this is not a settled matter and that the scientific debate is wide open -- a fact only the AGW activists refuse to acknowledge and indeed seek to repress and stifle by vicious ad hominems and buckets of spleen chucked at their detractors.

Besides, the aforegoing posts are not debate, properly speaking, but rather a serial quoting of those for and agin'. I'm far less interested in a 'forum debate' and refutations than in simply asserting the fact that AGW is far from settled science, and citing more knowledgable and credentialled experts who say the same. This has been done. You might not like all the links previously posted, but following many of them will bring you to cool, dispassionate science untainted by the shrill voice of politics. I know I can't convince you, any more than I can convince YammaGamma that the moon's not made of green cheese. You have to do that work yourself.

 

[BCO]

I must confess to not being a climate scientist, and so can only quote others. It's far too tedious to retype books and journals I have, so this sort of forum debate generally relies in web-based quotes. These are as accessible to you as they are to me. If you're truly interested you'd research them yourself.

The mere fact that both sides can pick authorities to support their case shows that this is not a settled matter and that the scientific debate is wide open -- a fact only the AGW activists refuse to acknowledge and indeed seek to repress and stifle by vicious ad hominems and buckets of spleen chucked at their detractors.

Besides, the aforegoing posts are not debate, properly speaking, but rather a serial quoting of those for and agin'. I'm far less interested in a 'forum debate' and refutations than in simply asserting the fact that AGW is far from settled science, and citing more knowledgable and credentialled experts who say the same. This has been done. You might not like all the links previously posted, but following many of them will bring you to cool, dispassionate science untainted by the shrill voice of politics. I know I can't convince you, any more than I can convince YammaGamma that the moon's not made of green cheese. You have to do that work yourself.

Hmm.... wasn't it you that said that ALL the science is against AGW? Now you're saying that the debate is wide open?

One thing that you're right about is that you can't convince me that AGW is a hoax. This is NOT because I'm unwilling to consider the skeptical viewpoints, but rather that there are currently NO theories presented by contrarians that are not soundly refuted by the mainstream climate science community. Further, I will maintain that it's dishonest to claim that all scientists who advocate AGW are "shrill voices of politics". To argue that everyone involved has a political motive is simply unreasonable - in fact, there are far more compelling political, economic and philosophical reasons to want to deny AGW.

I *have* done the reading myself, and I'm familiar with all the usual contrarian arguments as well as most of the "usual suspects" (Singer, Ball et al).

I will grant that there is a very vocal group of scientists who do not agree with the mainstream, but I maintain that this is a small minority.

Anyway, it appears that the case is closed. I'll obviously never convince you, and vice versa so only time will tell who's right.

Ciao.

 

[mercurial]

Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2008) — A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small.

Full article

 

[BandwidthAddict]

This one is a bit old, but a goodie:

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

What environ-mental-ists really want. Don't think it is relevant? How about a recent movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Environmental porn .. of course, at the end, they "save" humanity but only if it changes. If not, its party time.

What is wrong with these people that they want to wipe out humanity to "save" the earth? What is the earth anyway if not a simple biosphere? There is growing evidence that there are trillions of possible earth like planets out there. But even if that were not the case, in terms of the movie, there were other solutions:

1. Move the humans off earth to another planet that can sustain human life
2. If such a planet does not exist, create it. These aliens certainly have the ability.
3. Humans act in a particular way, the fact that the military would try to protect their national borders by force is obvious to any intelligent life that has observed us. Thus landing a huge craft in the middle of central park and then expecting a different response is ludicrous. They should have contacted earth from space in a way that gets attention. A huge light show would have worked. Humans tend to bow before our obvious betters .. if the aliens showed how technologically advanced they were and then said "ok, if you don't change, you will kill the planet in this way .. please don't make us do something we don't want to do" then we would have listened. At least we would have been afraid.

But that is the movie .. it is about the wish for the destruction of humanity by environmentalists. What is their problem? Don't they know if you kill off humanity that they would die as well .. or is that what they want too?

Words are not sufficient for how much I hate these idiots.

 

[w1z4rd]

This one is a bit old, but a goodie:

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

What environ-mental-ists really want. Don't think it is relevant? How about a recent movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Environmental porn .. of course, at the end, they "save" humanity but only if it changes. If not, its party time.

What is wrong with these people that they want to wipe out humanity to "save" the earth? What is the earth anyway if not a simple biosphere? There is growing evidence that there are trillions of possible earth like planets out there. But even if that were not the case, in terms of the movie, there were other solutions:

1. Move the humans off earth to another planet that can sustain human life
2. If such a planet does not exist, create it. These aliens certainly have the ability.
3. Humans act in a particular way, the fact that the military would try to protect their national borders by force is obvious to any intelligent life that has observed us. Thus landing a huge craft in the middle of central park and then expecting a different response is ludicrous. They should have contacted earth from space in a way that gets attention. A huge light show would have worked. Humans tend to bow before our obvious betters .. if the aliens showed how technologically advanced they were and then said "ok, if you don't change, you will kill the planet in this way .. please don't make us do something we don't want to do" then we would have listened. At least we would have been afraid.

But that is the movie .. it is about the wish for the destruction of humanity by environmentalists. What is their problem? Don't they know if you kill off humanity that they would die as well .. or is that what they want too?

Words are not sufficient for how much I hate these idiots.

Im sorry that whole thing was idiotic. Seems the fingers you are pointing point right back at you as well.

 

[BCO]

Yes, all environmentalists wish for the destruction of humanity

Anyway, why am I not surprised at the tactics being used *again* by somebody that BWA mentions? You really love quoting dishonest scumbags with alterior motives don't you, Bandy?


Texas Academy of Science statement on Pianka

We would like to state, however, that many of Dr. Pianka’s statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized. The purpose of his presentation was to dramatize the precarious plight of the human population. He did nothing more than apply commonly accepted principles of animal population dynamics to humans; an application not unique to this presentation and one that can be surmised by any student of ecology.

Here's the part of the actual transcript where he talks about Ebola:

This is an AIDS infected piece of a human. Each of those little round things is an HIV virulent that can infect a new human. Basically, they use their T-cells to they make copies of themselves.

HIV is a pandemic spread worldwide. It's increasing in frequency in a lot of places and it's a big concern to everybody. But, it's not gonna be the one that gets us cause HIV is too slow, it lets us live several years so it can pass itself on to new hosts.

Uh, it's no good, it's too slow.

Now when you get to these viruses — Ebola Zaire has potential. It kills nine out of ten humans. It's never gotten out of Africa cause its so virulent it kills everybody before they can move. I mean it kills you within a day or two.

Uh, you can only catch Ebola Zaire by contact with a human that's infected. It causes you to bleed. It breaks capillaries and you bleed out your orifices and if you go out and touch somebody who's sick with it you get it and you die, too — or nine times out of ten.

Ebola-Reston did get out of Africa and to the U.S. in the form of green monkeys that were imported for medical research and it's named after Reston, West Virginia where they have quarantine facility for these monkeys. And, uh, they had this epidemic and all the monkeys died but they didn't have contact with each other. But they were sharing a common, uh, ventilation system. So, this is in this room, air was circulating being pumped back, and so on. Uh, monkeys in a room that breathe the same air caught it.

Now it is only a matter of time until Ebola got here evolves and mutates a little and it will be airborne, and then I think we might finally get a take. And when it sweeps across the world — we're gonna have a lot of dead people. Every one of you that is lucky enough to survive gets to bury nine. Think about that. I doubt Ebola is gonna be the one that gets us. I think it will be, uh, something else.

But did you ever wonder why things like SARS and now what the Avian Flu are continually cropping up? They're cropping up because we were dumb enough to make a perfect epidemiological substrate for an epidemic. We bred our brains out, and now we're being pegged. The microbes are gonna take over. They're gonna control us as they have in the past. Think about that.

NOWHERE does Pianka say that we should kill of people with Ebola. He says that a disease like Ebola is likely to have catastrophic consequences for humanity due to our high population density.